R B POLYSACKS Vs. COMMISSIONER APPEALS CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI A. M. Mathur, Senior Counsel with Shri Upadhyaya Counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel submitted that in this petition and in connected petitions listed today, being W. P. No. 859 of 1998 [r. B. Polysacks, Indore v. The Commissioner (Appeals)] W. P. No. 860 of 1998 [commercial v. Commissioner (Appeals)] W. P. No 861 of 1998 [neo Sack Ltd. , Indore v. The Commissioner Appeals)] W. P. No 862 of 1998 [neo Sack Ltd. v. The Commissioner (Appeals)] and W. P. No. 877 of 1998 [r. B. Polysacks v. Commissioner (Appeals)], common questions are involved and the same identical order is under challenge, therefore, they be also heard and disposed of simultaneously. Copies of the petitioner together with annexures have been served on the standing counsel for respondent Shri B. G. Neema today. He was called to appear on behalf of the respondents. He has, accordingly, appeared before me. He utrenuously prays this Court for grant of time to file an appropriate reply and to put on record in writing that the petitioner has no case on merits.

(3.) HOWEVER, looking to the limited controversy involved in this petition and the connected petitions, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would have been served by keeping all these petitions pending as the question involved in these petitions appears to be clearly covered by a judgment of this Court and other Courts passed from time to time. Reference in this regard is sufficient to be made, to a judgment reported in, 1995 ECR 448 (NULL ), 1995 (77) ELT64 (MP) (Siddarth Tubes Ltd. v. Union of India ). In this view of the matter I have declined to grant any further time to the respondents to file reply in writing. However, the counsel for the parties have been heard at length.